Slashdot Mirror


CDC: Americans Getting Heavier, Average Woman Weighs As Much As 1960s Man

schwit1 writes: New statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the average American has packed on the pounds in the past 50 years. Both men and women have gained a considerable amount of weight since 1960, with the average American woman now weighing 166.2 pounds — nearly identical to what American men weighed in the 1960s. U.S. men have been getting bigger too, gaining nearly 30 pounds from the 1960s to 2010 — 166.3 pounds to 195.5 pounds today. The good news is that both sexes have gained almost an inch in height since then, so that accounts for some of the overall weight gain.

35 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. Comparing apples to miniature oranges by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

    It should be noted that the average US male (5'10" vs. 5'8") and female (5'5" vs. 5'3") in 2015 are both two inches taller than their 1960 counterparts. Based on the cube law, you'd expact the average female weight to have increased almost 10% as a result ((65/63)^3 = 1.098).

    Increased height accounts for more than half of the weight gain noted in the study.

    1. Re:Comparing apples to miniature oranges by rockout · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know you don't read the article in your giddy rush to get first post, but christ, that exact point was made in the fucking summary.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    2. Re:Comparing apples to miniature oranges by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      Yes, but at 385 pounds, you're not getting away with blaming that on an extra inch in height...

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    3. Re:Comparing apples to miniature oranges by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Moreover, in looking through the data for the last 30 minutes, I have yet to figure out where the CBS article is pulling their numbers from, since they linked to a very general page

      Because it's great grand fun to call 'murrikkkans fat stupid racist sexist retarded rednecks who cannot do a damn thing right. Even by other 'murricains.

      That kinda answers everything. Don't need data for that, Just envy or self loathing.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Comparing apples to miniature oranges by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      bigger tits.

      Unfortunately, they're mainly on men.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Comparing apples to miniature oranges by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Based on the cube law, you'd expact the average female weight to have increased almost 10% as a result ((65/63)^3 = 1.098).

      Increased height accounts for more than half of the weight gain noted in the study.

      So, you started your analysis by assuming a spherical human?

    6. Re:Comparing apples to miniature oranges by l810c · · Score: 2

      It All starts with Sodas, but I am not sure where it goes from there.

      I have just returned from our community swim meet. Kids drink multiple sodas and get heavy and swim slow.

      Kids drink water with the occasional small portion of soda stay lean and swim fast.

      My wife and I have observed this for the past 12 years at our community pool with ~400 members. Slim kids drink water mostly, heavy kids always have a Coke in hand. 24, 32, 48 oz behemoths.

      Years ago when I went to school there were the couple of Fat Kids. Now MOST Kids are Fat. And they are always drinking Sodas.

    7. Re:Comparing apples to miniature oranges by Pergatory · · Score: 2

      To counter your anecdotal evidence with my own, I drink way too much soda, probably 4 cans a day average, maybe more. On weekends probably more like 6. It's ruining my teeth. I have done this pretty much my entire life and I'm 34 years old now. I'm 5'10 and weigh 140 lbs. Despite not exercising regularly (I need to get on that), I'm still quite healthy. I simply have something most Americans know nothing about: food intake control. When I get full, I stop eating. I don't stuff every scrap on the plate into my belly. When I'm thirsty, I drink a mouthful at a time, not gulp down half a liter in one swig. Basically, I allow my body to communicate with me how much nutrition it needs, and I actually listen to it. That's all that is needed; listening to your body. There is not one single thing, such as soda, causing obesity in America. It's systemic. It's a culture problem. We have a fat culture. "Finish everything on your plate" is the motto of American well-to-do families who can afford to put way too much food on the table. Hell just look at serving sizes at any restaurant in America. You can't buy a meal that is sized for a person who is less than 180 lbs. I frequently buy "small" meals and throw away 1/3 of the food I get.

    8. Re:Comparing apples to miniature oranges by gzuckier · · Score: 2

      I know you didn't read the fucking post you were replying to but the OP pointed out that people have actually increased in height 2 inches, not one as claimed in the summary.

      Well, obviously. In 1960, I wasn't even 5 feet tall. Now I'm more than a foot taller, obviously I'm going to be heavier.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  2. Which of course has nothing to do with... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the corn subsidies and the silly food pyramid.

    We eat too much, we exercise too little, and we eat the wrong things.

    More fruits, veg, and yes meat... and less starchy food.

    As to getting people to move their fat asses every so often... good luck with that.

    My ultimate solution to all this is massive genetic engineering.

    First there's no reason we couldn't make our staple crops more nutritious. If we can put beta carotene in the rice of third world farmers just imagine what we could do with our OWN food. You could turn your staple crop of choice into a fucking multivitamin.... shift the resources in it to fats and proteins. And that is just the ONE crop.

    A more reeasonable way to do it would be to have about 20 different breeds of wheat etc and have each one have its own special characteristics. THEN you just blend them together in the desired ratios at the flour mill. The health nuts will blend their own and most people will be happy with a standard blend.

    We can also do stuff like change gultin to something else that people aren't sometimes allergic to.

    Then of course there is the human body. The body does not NEED exercise to build muscle. It is TRIGGERED to build muscle by exercise. Those triggers can be adjusted. Ideally you want them to be related to food intake. If in some future we go into famine, the body must not keep assuming it has access to our 21st century food supply. It has to adapt. And of course, if you're getting lots of food, the body shouldn't stock pile excessive amounts of fat but rather build up some healthy muscle.

    On top of that, we should awaken the portions of our genes that permit regeneration. Currently we have only a few parts of our bodies that regenerate. The intestines for example still regenerate. But there is no reason it couldn't grow new internal organs, grow new limbs, grow new eyes, new ears, regenerate nerves, etc.All of that is latent in our biology.

    And while we're doing that... how about raise the standard human IQ to something less obnoxiously pitiful. Because boy oh boy are there are a lot of morons.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Which of course has nothing to do with... by VanessaE · · Score: 2

      On top of that, we should awaken the portions of our genes that permit regeneration. Currently we have only a few parts of our bodies that regenerate. The intestines for example still regenerate. But there is no reason it couldn't grow new internal organs, grow new limbs, grow new eyes, new ears, regenerate nerves, etc.All of that is latent in our biology.

      But...didn't researchers at Marvel already establish that this may sometimes lead to people dying in sudden, very hot explosions? :-P

  3. Mostly because our food is shit. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly 90% of what we consumer is not food but just piles of sugar coated shit.

    Stop eating at any restaurants, Stop eating anything that comes in a box or Bag. Hell even our bread is so sweet that most europeans call it cake.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Mostly because our food is shit. by BlackSabbath · · Score: 2

      Correction: I believe highly processed food is more shit-coated sugar than sugar-coated shit.

    2. Re:Mostly because our food is shit. by kenj123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I couldn't agree more. Its ridiculous how much salt and sugar is in everything. I have started buying cans of diced tomatos and black beans that don't have salt in them, and I put a can of that in everything I eat. I'm to the point now that potato chips, nacho etc taste like the spoonfuls of salt that they are. Also, anything that has sugar or fructose in them get tossed. I make my own bbq sauce from pineapple and tomato paste. I don't buy bread anymore, I make my own out of whole wheat and chick pea flour, although I have started to use whole wheat wraps to make sandwiches for the convenience. I'm also trying som near beers or fermented drinks like Kombucha 'tea', Belgian lambic or Russian Kvass (or maybe even just Odules) to get me more used to sour foods. I've been eating pickles lately and found if I eat just a slice first thing in the morning it kills my appetite for sweets.

    3. Re:Mostly because our food is shit. by dugancent · · Score: 2

      It counts as a sugar. Stop eating anything that has added sweeter, whether it sugar, corn syrup, aspartame, splenda, etc. It doesn't matter.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    4. Re:Mostly because our food is shit. by rainmaestro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A couple years ago I decided to give up refined sugar in general for a few months, particularly soda (like any good dev, I consumed more than my share of the stuff). After 3 months without, I drank a Dr. Pepper (my favorite) and it was disgusting. Tasted like a mouthful of sugar. Amazing how much you become desensitized to sugar, and the same holds for salt.

      The real surprise was one day when I discovered that carrots are actually sweet. They just don't seem that way when you consume a metric ton of refined sugar every week. That really made me start wondering just how badly my perception of foods had been corrupted over the years.

    5. Re:Mostly because our food is shit. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Interesting there's some evidence that even artificial sweeteners can screw with your insulin system a bit, though not as much as real sugar. Mostly because the brain thinks that sugar is incoming and produces insulin for the expected inrush of sugar which never occurs.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. Point was made but wrong by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The summary mentioned a height increase but only of an inch and only account for 10% of the gain, not two inches and half of the gain as the person you were responding to noting. If nothing else he was correcting a bad summary.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Point was made but wrong by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      If nothing else he was correcting a bad summary.

      No he isn't. The summary is correct, and he is wrong. Americans are one inch taller than in 1960, not two inches. In 1960 the average man was 5'8", today he is 5'9". The average women went from 5'3" to 5'4".

  5. Re:Bizarre time intervals by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
  6. Which Woman Did They Check? by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny

    If her name was Caitlyn and she had big manly hands, it's likely your average woman WAS a 1960s man.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  7. We could just raise wages by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Obesity is most common with the working poor. It's not too surprising. Cheap junk food and TV is about the only pleasure they have left what with smoking being a no-no

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:We could just raise wages by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. It's about having better impulse control.

      Poor people are also much more likely to have 5 children each with a different person. Maintaining a healthy weight requires some degree of effort and discipline. People that never adequately prepared for their future are simply demonstrating the same faults in their eating habits as they have done in other things.

      Being poor doesn't eliminate the possibility of doing better. People like that are just less likely to stay poor (been there, done that).

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  8. HOwever... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

    The one-inch gain in height was dwarfed (so to speak) by the six-inch gain in heights listed on online dating sites.

  9. Re:So what's that in metric? by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, weight training "adds weight" (muscle), but in most normal cases (other than low fat people who train very hard), i.e., overweight/obese people, it helps lowering their weight since the muscle they build burns fat even while not exercising (just by existing at rest).

    --
    Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
  10. Re:So what's that in metric? by xevioso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't worry, continentals. You'll be catching up to us soon: http://qz.com/89553/europeans-...

    Well, at least your wine, beer and cheese is better... oh wait, it's not.
    http://www.worldbeercup.org/wi...

  11. Re:Bodyfat percentage, not total weight, please. by Shados · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Significant to have scientifically sound data, yes.

    Significant to understand the problem, no. I just have to take a look outside to realize that even adjusted for muscle mass/body fat percentage would be an insignificant ripple in the data.

  12. What about body fat % by bangular · · Score: 2

    In the age of cheap body fat % measuring devices, why not make body fat % the standard? I'm tall and borderline overweight according to BMI, but I have about 14% body fat percentage. It's much easier to compare across body types with that metric than BMI. Yet I've never had a doctor record my body fat %, only height and weight.

    1. Re:What about body fat % by Trongy · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is an even simpler measurement that correlates well with obesity risks - waist circumference.
      e.g http://www.healthdirect.gov.au...

      No scales or body fat measuring devices are required, only a tape measure.
      The old excuses like being "big boned" or having high muscle mass don't apply.
      Don't focus on weight, which has many confounding factors. If your waistline decreases because you lose abdominal fat, you will be healthier.

  13. Re:So what's that in metric? by fatquack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A World Beer Cup where only a fraction of breweries outside of the USA participate in?
    Look at the list of participants, for instance for Belgium only 27 breweries (some of which are owned by the same company) are listed, that's like one sixth of the Belgian breweries only.

  14. what took you so long? by buybuydandavis · · Score: 3, Funny

    "U.S. men have been getting bigger too, gaining nearly 30 pounds from the 1960s to 2010"

    Pfftph! I've gained 30 pounds in the last 2 years.

  15. Re: So what's that in metric? by TWX · · Score: 2

    We have been feeling the fallout of Redit drama for a while now. How many articles on how we need more women in STEM have we had in the last 6 months?

    My wife has a bachelors in mechanical engineering from MIT and works in a field that uses her degree. She has told me that she's tired of hearing "STEM" as it always seems to come from people that do not hold any degree in the hard sciences, or in technology, or in engineering, or in mathematics. If they want to push for people to get degrees in these fields, then they should put their money, time, and energy where their mouth is and go back and get a degree from among those kinds, then start advocating for it once they really know what they're advocating for.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  16. .. with smoking? by guacamole · · Score: 2

    Americans are used to eating shitty food, and lots of it. But there is also the issue of .. tobacco smoking. Every time I go to Europe, I see that nearly every second person, men and women, smoke all the time. Tobacco is a great appetite inhibitor. I recall that when I myself quit smoking, I might have gained something like 15-20 pounds of weight, real fast. I have some friends from eastern Europe, and they're skinny as hell, and they also smoke. They're doctors, and whenever I start discussion the effect of smoking on health with them, they tell me they only smoke in the evening, yet the over the top filled ashtrays everywhere in their homes suggest otherwise. Despite some of the bad health/eating habits, the war on smoking is something that Americans are 10-20 years ahead of most Europe, depending on where you live, and that could possibly have some effect on the weight Americans.

  17. Maybe because this is a bodybuilding forum... by NEW22 · · Score: 2

    When it comes to online discussions regarding obesity, ~50% of commenters are unfairly evaluated hulking muscular athletic edge cases.

  18. Re:So what's that in metric? by Kjella · · Score: 2

    More like muscles are high upkeep so you have to exercise to keep them, if you just asked a muscular guy to not exercise he wouldn't lose much weight. In fact unless he adjusted his eating habits he'd be a lot more likely to gain weight. And if you reward yourself with junk food and snacks after exercise it won't do you any good at all. There's three very good effects though:

    1) If you're already on a healthy diet it's easier to exercise more than reduce intake even further.
    2) The ratio of muscles to fat is improved, giving you more strength to carry less.
    3) Muscle is denser, even if you're not lighter you'll be slimmer with less flopping around.

    The first one is as simple that the body needs a good fuel mix, it doesn't work well on pure fat. So you have to eat a minimum and if you eat more and exercise you can burn away the fat portion without undernourishing yourself. The second and third basically makes you feel and look better, which is probably just as much the point as the number on a scale.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings